Just shy of a year ago, prior to the hurricane's definitive statement of destructive intent, I gathered together previous NAC postings on the status of our riverfront venue.
A thriving (and progressive?) RiverStage in Jeffersonville, and in New Albany ... er, never mind.
The amphitheater is back in the news after the mayor met with characters from the Wizard of Oz to announce a target date for canopy replacement, and that there'll be munchkins running amok near the boat landing in September thanks to a performances of L. Frank Baum's story.
Surreal. Just plain surreal.
My take: It's a wonderful thing to have the riverside venue recapped, and thanks to the mayor for getting the job done. At the same time, performances like Dorothy's are not what really needs to be staged there.
You?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
The last thing the riverfront needs is a "nobody goes there" vibe. Or, to be more specific, the last thing it needs is a single vibe where perfectly justified arbiters decide it ain't cool to be there, or it's just for kids, or it's just for headbangers, or country, or classic rock covers, or cornhole.
I'm happy to see L. Frank Baum's classic being interpreted there. Some things I'll attend, others I'll avoid. And that's how it should be.
I'm not getting the problem with the play being there.
I feel, much like The Bookseller here, the programs hopefully will and should be varied. I just have one request that we continue with the live music, just not ALL oldies music.
I'm being prickly be design.
Oz means nothing to me one way or another, and as the Bookseller notes, I just won't attend shows like that.
But echoing Courtney, the important part is not to let the new venue be subjected to Trinkle Think again. Bullet Bob viewed it as an asset to protect against the public, not use for the public's benefit, and his concept of acceptable entertainment was outmoded during his 90's heyday.
Just don't let that happen again, and I'll be happy.
OK, we all agree that it needs to be varied.
Now to the real question. Why did New Albany use the insurance settlement(or least a big part of it)on the Tabernacle to help fund the amphitheater?
Agreed on variety.
I think the Tabernacle question leads to another question: Other than looking bad, is it doing any structural damage to go roofless for a while? I haven't been in it since the storm but, based on previous tours, there wasn't much in there that would be greatly affected by rain.
I hope those few remnants left are in storage. I know at least some of them are.
The plaster inside will never be the same. I suspect that there was no buy-in to the idea of preserving the architectural integrity of the building, reasoning that it was a piece of land with a building shell, not a historic structure that deserved to be restored.
Arguably, it's cheaper, though environmentally unsound, to build "new" floors and walls. I think it's too late to make it what many had hoped it could be. I'm much more concerned now with the brick itself, because it doesn't appear that anything is in the works to actually put the building to use.
I had heard that the roof-rip yielded $200K in insurance proceeds. Can anyone else confirm that?
I understand where you're coming from, Bookseller, but the plaster inside was mostly gone already, before the storm. The ground floor is concrete and the non-original, added second floor was going to have to be rebuilt anyway if anyone wanted to use it as a two story.
The only walls, other than the brick, were cheaply built dividers used to create some office space in what what was otherwise a warehouse.
I think it was just a shell to start with. There were only a very interior pieces left after decades of abuse.
For photos on what was left of the Tabernacle prior to the hurricane, here's a few photos of the interior upstairs that I managed to grab:
Baptist TabernacleWhat I was told was that all of the decorative wood supports for the ceiling (where there are large gaping holes in the plaster) were removed and sold/given to someone that wanted them for some other purpose years ago.
I haven't seen the inside since the hurricane, but I can't imagine much of what I took pictures of is left.
Actually I think that the play is a great idea as long as it is a START of more things to come. Oz is not going to make or break this on its own.
I love the idea of plays there. We have two of the finest drama programs in the nation, in our two high schools. I'd love to see some of them in that venue as well as other things such as concerts.
I believe your 200k is correct or at least very close. If I remember correctly, 120k of it went to the amphitheater.
What the hell did we buy the Tabernacle for if we are just going to let it fall down? It was touted as such a grand purchase.
Maybe the new Amphitheater looks like a giant upside down crack pipe? Am I the only one that can see it? Sooo Ghetto! Man doesn't take care of the "kids" cause we gotta 'em a new gold chain.
What the hell did we buy the Tabernacle for if we are just going to let it fall down? It was touted as such a grand purchase.First of all, no one said anything about letting it fall down.
Second, it kept it out of the hands of a long-term building abuser. The guy that owns Wolf Glass bought the old skating rink building at 213 E. 4th this morning at sheriff's sale. He's the same guy who owns the non-maintained eyesore next to it.
If it weren't for the City stepping in, he'd own the Tabernacle as he was the second highest bidder.
Buy a building. The roof blows off. Get a full settlement from the insurance. Spend the settlement on something else. Still no plan announced for building. Building continues to deteriorate.
I'm sorry. I fail to see how this is really much better or different.
You haven't answered the central question: Is the building really getting any worse sitting as is?
The way it stands, the city still owns the shell it bought and has options to either reuse it or sell it. It also has complete site control, meaning it can determine proper use.
The place needed major reconstructive roof work prior to the storm. I don't know if all the roof structure would've needed replacement but a substantial portion of it would have. I don't think any of us imagined it would be damaged by a hurricane, but there's no great loss there, especially since the original decorative work between the facade and roof were salvaged.
Since then, we've received a $200K payment for a building on which we spent $100K. If we reuse it or flat out give it away, taxpayers are $100K ahead.
If the city hadn't bought it, we'd know what the plan is- another classic building being used as a warehouse in a prime downtown location with little to no hope of seeing restoration or higher use.
The City didn't get to choose when the building went to foreclosure sale. It had to act right then or live with the foreseeable consequences, none of which were good. They made the right decision under the circumstances.
I had no knowledge of it before hand, but I was proud of them for doing it and remain so.
I recall being told by the historical preservation contingent that the building is not in bad structural shape in spite of it all. Here's a great case for creative adaptive reuse, eh?
I'm not an engineer but I would suspect that practically any building that is subject to the elements from both inside and outside sure as heck isn't getting better.
The building has no roof and the money to fix that is gone. How long is it going to sit that way? Why shouldn't we question the city as hard as any other property owner?
Granted, I don't know what the city is going to do with it or when--then again, neither do you. Neither of us really know what the 2nd bidder would do with building either. You can point out what he has done with other property, which is fair. Need I mention that city's track record is anything but sterling?
Granted, I don't know what the city is going to do with it or when--then again, neither do you.Exactly, which is why I'm not suggesting that they bought it just to let it fall down. The City has had building experts examine the Tabernacle. If they'd determined that the building was in any danger of falling down or suffering substantial structural problems due to the lack of roof any time soon, the situation would be different.
Likewise, if the building is allowed to deteriorate to that point, then you'll hear me "questioning" as loudly as anyone.
As far as a track record with property is concerned, the YMCA looks pretty good to me. The only piece left in limbo to my knowledge is the stables and I'd expect to see any movement on it only after the the new city hall situation is figured out. Until that happens, it wouldn't be terribly smart in my opinion to give up a building and piece of ground the City already owns.
I was speaking more generally about the city's track record. Anybody notice that the sewers need fixing, the streets need paving, trees need planting, codes need enforcing, etc.? Stewardship has not been a high priority for several administrations. Anyhow...
Fine. You can just sleep on the couch tonight!
As goofy as it is, we're actually way ahead of surrounding cities in sewer terms. We just took our lumps earlier.
The trees are more citizen responsibility, IMO. That's why we were tree shopping last weekend.
You got me on streets and code enforcement. As you can see already, though, council members are mounting an attack against streets.
Is there a roof over the couch?
And, Roger, I heard you on creative reuse. We may have to fight battles on multiple fronts for that.
So the city is $100k to the good. Why not put stringent architectural and use restrictions on it and give it to a developer. The city could "bid" it out and give it to the best use and design. Add some provisions for completion. I see this as the best solution. The city will argue over this forever and spend way more than someone else that could really make it a jewel again.
I threw trees in for Gina. Just because we are "ahead" on the sewers doesn't invalidate my stewardship point. New Albany should not have been in that position or, at a minimum, as bad a position.
NOW you are concerned about a
roof!!
Daniel,
Your idea has merit and has actually been discussed. My concern is the same--how long will they argue over it.
There's a building with no roof.
Good point. How much would an architectural study cost? $10k? Have an urban specialist tell the city what the best use for the city would be. Will it be condos, shopping or an eatery? I don't know the answer to that, but once a recommendation has been made the city should open bids for renderings of what the investors would do with it based on the best use.
Can it really be that difficult?
I guess it boils down to, would any of us accept this exact same situation if Mr. 2nd Highest Bidder had won the bidding?
The two parties would have very different interests in the property. I don't think the comparison's valid.
Good example of why this blog annoys me sometimes. One simple valid question like why has the historic Tabernacle been further degraded since it’s purchase turns into an apology for the city government. In terms of full disclosure, why does Bluegill always “answer” for the city, or apologize often for them?
Would you like to have a discussion with interested parties? Or has NAC’s mission of public discourse and watch-dogging been reduced to a smokey back room for members only?
Full disclosure: I was the third highest bidder at the auction for the Tabernacle. I would have preferred the Wolf’s bought the building, at least it wouldn’t be yet another eyesore foisted upon the residents by completely pointless city government.
Iamhoosier - thanks for your attempt at a rational observation. You are not the only person who sees the purchase of a new tent with money for a roof as embarrassing. Let’s make sure and highlight the busted Tabernacle building in the opening celebration brochure for the “tent” - “Brought to you by all the Victorian buildings we destroyed!” That tent is starting to feel like the Mayor’s mistress...
ps. Mark, I planted a new tree on city property last week...just waiting now for the street dept to come destroy it.
Back to the musical design/series of fifteen years ago when many of the acts now scene at Horseshoe,Belterra and French Lick did the NA Riverfront Ampitheater. Plus visits from the regional symphonies; Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra. Someone please ask Carnegie Center Director Sally Newkirk about how they used to make that all happen; dinner and then symphonic bliss. It was all a much simplier time...
I remember that, Ed. I'm working on putting together some possible symphonic options now.
In terms of full disclosure, why does Bluegill always “answer” for the city, or apologize often for them?You're joking, right?
Would you like to have a discussion with interested parties? Or has NAC’s mission of public discourse and watch-dogging been reduced to a smokey back room for members only?It's entirely possible that I resent that, but before taking the plunge, perhaps you's like to elaborate.
"I think the Tabernacle question leads to another question: Other than looking bad, is it doing any structural damage to go roofless for a while? I haven't been in it since the storm but, based on previous tours, there wasn't much in there that would be greatly affected by rain."
I'm still trying to get past this statement early on...
Just a note: a member of the Board of Works advises that insurance money from the Tabernacle is not being used on the amphitheater.
The insurance money in question came from the settlement paid on damage to the amphitheater itself.
I've not confirmed with multiple sources yet. If they're reading, perhaps Tribune folks could double check.
I did a search and a story published on October 8, 2008, references the use of that insurance money. I don't think the City received settlement on the Tabernacle until January, 2009.
I don't think that is correct. The Council JUST passed an additional appropriation because the bids came in too high and I'm pretty sure part of said appropriation came from the Tabernacle settlement. I think the total additional appropriation was 200K with 120K being from the Tabernacle.
An Oct.8 story would not be relevent to this discussion.
I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time!
I'm aware of the additional appropriation. The BPW member might not have been. I don't know, either.
It doesn't change my position on the whole discussion so I guess I'm still on the couch.
As far as this blog becoming a "members only", I'm afraid that I would have to disagree, Gina.
I've known Roger for a long time. A good portion of that time was more as a patron. However, I like to think that in the past 5 or so years we have become friends. During this period I have also became friends with Jeff and Lloyd.
Disagreements are allowed here. This discussion is an example. I'm pretty sure that Jeff is not taking this personal and I know that I am not. We are not calling each other names. We are each taking responsibility for our words. And it should go without saying that, unlike a certain local blog, comments and discussion are encouraged and welcomed.
Like I said, we don't take it personal. Jeff's just wrong this time!!!
NA wrote:
In terms of full disclosure, why does Bluegill always “answer” for the city, or apologize often for them?You're joking, right?
I have to be honest. Lately, there does seem to be a "give the executive branch a pass" tinge here at NAC.(please note "tinge")
Hoosier, for what it's worth, the bids weren't too high, the estimate by the architect was way too low. Waaay to low.
I stand corrected. The bids came in way over the estimate.
I don't want my thoughts on the amphitheater to get lost in this either. I'm for it and hope to go often.
For several years we asked for a more aggressive administration. Now we have one.
There are a lot of passionate people here. It's one of the reasons we have so much potential. It will undoubtedly get heated at times. As Mark says, I don't take it personally, or at least I try not to.
If I'm wrong on facts, correct me. If we have differing opinions based on facts, may the best argument win. If you'd prefer to focus on rumor and personal innuendo because you don't know or are too lazy to seek facts, fuck off.
With that out of the way, I'll say this:
We're at a significant crossroads. Not only is there an usual amount of revitalization money up for grabs via federal stimulus action (and woe is me that our newly minted state representative seems more inclined to use Tribune space to bash government rather than increase its local utility through the acquisition of same), but many of the staff that the City and other local agencies currently enjoy are nearing the end of their careers.
Love them or hate them - and I've certainly had my share of disagreements with them - they represent an amazing amount of institutional knowledge and experience in successfully navigating bureaucracy, particularly the type of state and federal funding and compliance rules that circumscribe what we're able to accomplish with what's too often the only money we have (or are allowed to use due to uncooperative councils).
When those folks are gone, they're gone. We can spend the time we have left beating up on them to no avail or we can spend it more wisely, making sure that as many improvement projects as possible are completed or get off to a good start while hopefully learning some of the skills necessary to continue their work ourselves as best we can after their retirement.
I'm for the latter.
Never meant to throw anyone under the proverbial bus.
As for Oz ... I'm short enough to be a munchkin, I have to like it at least little. It's a good family show.
As for future music, I'd love to see Jamey Aebersold's quartet perform regularly at the amphitheater. I think it would be neat to have various themed nights.
As for the Tabernacle ... I read about plans they had, but it's been too long and I've read too many other things since then and therefore, I've forgotten. I still have faith they will do something productive with it.
Post a Comment